Historical Veracity
in the Documentation of the Flute
Introduction
During the mid and later nineteenth
century, as we have discussed elsewhere, the flute as an instrument
underwent a process of reconsideration perhaps unparalleled by any other
musical instrument in history. A myriad of competing designs were
developed and marketed, each stridently proclaimed by its originator to
have resolved all of the residual problems recognized in the flute with
respect to tone, intonation and fingering. A major challenge facing those
of us interested in the evolution of the flute during this period is to
sort out the often-contradictory and frequently unsubstantiated claims
made by those involved in this evolutionary process and evaluate these
claims objectively on the basis of separate evidence which may confirm or
refute them.
In the opinion of the present authors, by
far the most persuasive method of undertaking such an evaluation is to
allow the actual instruments involved to speak for themselves and thus
either confirm or refute the claims made for them by their understandably
partisan designers. To that end, we have embarked upon a program of
acquiring historically-significant flutes, restoring them to original
playing condition and then analysing their performance both on the basis
of playing impressions and on the results of reproducible and hence
directly comparable physical measurement and acoustical analysis. The
result of several of our evaluations are already presented elsewhere on
this web site, and many more will appear in the future as our work
progresses.
But in order to really bring this
fascinating subject to life, the contemporary observations bequeathed to
us by those who were directly involved in the process have a value that
cannot be supplanted by mere analysis of the instruments involved. The
personal element is what really brings the period to life for us, since it
speaks to a level of human experience which we all share to some degree
with our predecessors, however different the times and circumstances may
be.
At this point, one of the greatest
challenges for the historical researcher presents itself. The surviving
artefacts, in this case the flutes, have no consciousness of their own
testimony and no axes to grind or opinions to promote – they simply are
what they are, and their characteristics can be measured and tested quite
objectively in a reproducible manner. The testimony that they provide is
thus relatively unambiguous and free from any opportunities for the
insertion of personal biases – the data speak for themselves.
However, this is far from true of the
human observers and recorders of the period in question! With few
exceptions, most of the chief contemporary commentators on the subject of
the flute during its major evolutionary phase in the mid and later
nineteenth century held very strong personal opinions on the matters of
which they were writing and in the majority of cases were actively
promoting their own realizations of the “perfect flute” with a strong
commercial interest. This being the case, it is almost inevitable that
some level of personal bias or commercial influence will have colored
their comments to a certain degree. The challenge facing any researcher
into the period is to filter out the effects which such personal biases
may have imprinted upon the veracity or completeness of the comments which
they have left us. The present essay is intended to clarify the basis upon
which we ourselves approach the issue of credibility when extracting
material from historical documents, and to advocate a similar approach by
others.
The influence of motivation for errors
Errors in the written record fall into two
broad categories – unintentional and deliberate. In many cases,
misinformation provided by earlier commentators may be entirely
unintentional and based on nothing more sinister than genuine
misunderstandings or incomplete information. In such case, there is no
motive behind the incorrect information provided – it is a genuine human
error and nothing more. All of us are entitled to those!
On the other had, the intentional
promulgation of misinformation must surely have a motive in all cases. A
number of factors may influence a commentator to stretch, twist or alter
the truth, including professional jealousy, commercial rivalry,
salesmanship, self-aggrandizement or just plain antipathy.
An objective review of the various texts
bequeathed to us by our nineteenth-century colleagues reveals that most,
if not all, of these commentators appear to have been guilty of lapses
from hard fact or the omission of relevant facts, whether knowingly or
otherwise. It is often subjectively tempting to excuse such lapses on the
grounds of honest error, simple misunderstanding, salesmanship, business
motives or whatever. While it is perfectly true that such subjectively
“excusable” factors may have entered into the picture, the fact remains
that, in terms of objective and academically-defensible research, an error
of fact or omission remains an error regardless of the
motivation whereby it materialized, and any author seriously seeking the
respect of others for his or her work is under an academic obligation to
report and correct such errors, regardless of who made them or for what
reason.
It can also be tempting to defend a
commentator who has been shown to have made erroneous statements by
claiming that “... it is intuitively obvious that what he (or
she) really meant to say was ...”. It should be crystal clear
that this defense is academically inadmissible if we are concerned with
the establishment of facts as opposed to opinions.
Lacking any opportunity to interview the long-dead commentators in
question and thus obtain clarification, the only legitimate
approach from an academic standpoint is to examine the work of a given
commentator from the standpoint that the individual involved knew how to
express himself or herself clearly and that hence the words which he or
she bequeathed to us mean exactly what they say and that
they were intended to convey this meaning and no other.
To take any other approach defeats the entire academic purpose of an
exercise of this nature by injecting a high level of subjectivity and
assumption into an analysis which must be approached very objectively if
the historical record is to be clarified on a purely factual basis.
Categories of Erroneous Statements
Broadly speaking, errors in written works
by contemporary commentators during the period with which we are concerned
fall into five main categories:
1)
Innocent Errors of
Fact – incorrect statements
of fact made in good faith on the basis of the commentator’s genuine
beliefs at the time of writing (an important qualification)
based upon incorrect assumptions, incomplete knowledge or just plain
misinformation accepted in good faith. In this category, there is no
intention to mislead or deceive, and the credibility and
personal integrity of the commentator in question remain intact unless it
can be conclusively shown that his or her work is excessively pervaded by
such errors. However, errors of this kind do need to be recognized and
corrected in order to set the historical record straight.
2)
Lies
– incorrect statements of fact or false
accusations made in the full knowledge of the true facts of the matter,
with the intention of misleading or deceiving the reader.
This is a far more serious category, which most definitely calls into
question the academic integrity of the commentator in question. In this
case, finding that the actual facts do not suit his or her contention or
support a given accusation, the commentator either alters the facts to
suit his or her theory or invents completely fictitious “facts” to support
the contention being advanced. While this is one of the most serious
allegations that can be brought against any commentator in academic terms,
it is often one of the easier ones to deal with, since in many cases
separate evidence (often derived from such artifacts as surviving flutes
or surviving records from demonstrably independent sources) can be brought
into play to clarify the true state of affairs beyond rational argument.
3)
Omission of facts
– due either to the commentator subjectively not seeing the omitted
material as being important or relevant or, in many cases, to the
commentator being genuinely and legitimately unaware of the omitted
material at the time of writing (the latter being an
important consideration). It would be hard to find any
commentator on any subject who is not guilty of this error,
and there is nothing whatever sinister about it since there is no
intention to mislead or deceive. Nor does it necessarily reflect
in an academic sense upon the credibility of the commentator in question.
But such omissions nonetheless require identification and amendment by
later researchers in order to set the record straight.
4)
Suppression of facts
– a far more serious matter! In this category, the commentator is well
aware of the omitted material but has chosen to exclude it
because it runs counter to some personal opinion, theory or goal, with a
clear intention to mislead or deceive. Since this type of
error has a definite bearing both upon current appraisals of the
historical facts surrounding a given issue and upon the academic
credibility of a given commentator, it is essential that later researchers
exercise due diligence in identifying and correcting such errors.
5)
Selection of facts
– a matter which is in
effect a subsidiary manifestation of the previous category. In this case,
the commentator “high-grades” the facts to suit his or her particular
theory or opinion, reporting as much of the truth as conforms to his or
her particular thesis while suppressing the rest. The most common
manifestation of this issue in our context appears to be the carefully
incomplete reporting of what another individual has said or done in
connection with a particular subject, or the deliberate quoting of that
material out of context. Because what is reported is generally factual as
far as it goes, the identification of errors of this nature can be quite
challenging – it is obviously difficult to spot something that isn’t there
to be spotted! However, if a commentator is claiming to be reporting
comprehensively and objectively upon another individual’s comments or
actions, or is basing a certain stated opinion upon those comments or
actions, then he or she is under an obligation to report those comments or
actions in full and in context before presenting his or her
opinion on the matter. Failure to do so once again calls into question
the credibility of the commentator involved, and can significantly affect
the factuality of his or her presentation of the issue. Hence, where this
has not been done in the past, we believe that it is incumbent upon
present researchers to fill in the gaps as best possible, or at least to
identify any problems of incompleteness or lack of context that may exist.
The implications of errors upon the overall credibility
of a commentator
It would be difficult to find
a commentator (including the present authors and all of
their predecessors) who is not guilty of at least some
unintentional Category 1 and Category 3 errors as set out above. But this
does not necessarily make all of a given
commentator’s statements untrue by any means. This leads to the question
– what does the identification of a number of errors in a given writer’s
work mean in terms of the credibility of his or her statements as a
whole? This is a difficult question to grapple with, but the
attempt must be made if academic integrity is to be maintained.
We have already stated that,
given the impossibility of interviewing the commentators involved to seek
clarification, the only academically-defensible approach is to take the
words in context and in their entirety at
their face value to mean exactly what they appear to
mean. Furthermore, it is necessary to assume that the apparent meaning,
and no other, was intended by the writer.
Only in this way can the insertion of our own personal biases be avoided.
We must now go further and
state our view that the only academically-defensible credibility
evaluation of such statements is the presumption that they are true,
unless and only unless they can be shown
on the basis of separate and independent evidence (as opposed to mere
opinion or speculation) not to be true or likely not
to be true. This may be called McGee & Duncan’s Presumption of Honesty –
the presumption that statements made by past commentators on matters of
historical interest are true unless and only
unless authoritative evidence can be openly presented to demonstrate
that such a presumption is unwarranted. This approach parallels the
fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence unless proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there seems to be no good reason for
denying our distinguished predecessors this same standard of protection in
terms of their reputations.
In pursuing their historical
flute studies, the present authors have applied this principle throughout,
regardless of the commentator involved, and will continue to do so. We
will only identify errors when we believe that there
is convincing evidence, which we will openly present for discussion, that
the matters in question are indeed errors. Otherwise, we
will accept the evidence as factual or at least as un-contradicted.
It must surely be obvious
that failure to adopt this principle and to adhere instead to a
presumption of falsehood, would throw out much of the accepted written
historical record, given that a great deal of our primary evidence
consists of the often uncorroborated writings of persons long dead, upon
whose veracity we have no choice but to rely unless we have very
good reason to think that we cannot do so.
Where statements are
encountered which directly contradict one another, it follows that one or
the other (or possibly both!) must be untrue.
In such cases, a serious effort must be made to find and present
independent evidence to settle the matter one way or another. If no such
evidence can be found, there is no academically-credible basis for
assuming that one statement is correct and the other incorrect,
since that becomes a matter of subjective opinion rather than fact - all
that can credibly be done in an academic sense is to point out the
opposing statements and leave the matter there as an unresolved issue
pending the appearance of fresh evidence.
Some well-challenged examples
A number of individuals who have left us
contemporary writings on the subject of mid nineteenth century flute
development have had their veracity openly challenged in the past and
indeed in some case up to the present. Notable among these individuals
are Theobald Böhm, Richard S. Rockstro and John Clinton.
Theobald Böhm’s
(1794–1881) development of his 1832 conical-bored flute with rationally
sized and spaced holes and an entirely new mechanism, and his subsequent
application of this system to the metal cylinder bore, was the subject of
virulent criticism during his lifetime and afterwards. Beginning with his
1847 “Essay on the Construction of Flutes”, Böhm wrote extensively
about his work in connection with these developments, but his writings
were suppressed (in English, at least) during his lifetime, leaving the
field open for his English-based detractors to attack him unchallenged. We
will be examining the suppression of Böhm’s 1847 “Essay”
elsewhere. His more extensive 1867 work “The Flute and Flute Playing”
was likewise never published in English until long after his death.
It appears on the basis of subsequent
research that Böhm was actually very honest and comprehensive in reporting
on his activities and in defending his right to identification as the true
inventor of the Böhm flute. However, the fact that his own
English-language defense of his position was suppressed during his
lifetime meant that for fifty years his credibility as the inventor of the
flute which still to this day bears his name remained under a cloud.
Thankfully, this cloud has long ago been dispelled.
The chief attack upon Böhm’s claim to
priority as the true inventor of his flute came from the London flautist
and teacher Richard S. Rockstro (1826–1906), whose negative
views of Böhm appear to have developed at a relatively early age, possibly
as a result of an early association with the London flute-maker and vocal
Böhm detractor Cornelius Ward (c. 1796–1872). Rockstro questioned both
Böhm’s priority in his invention and his competence as a designer and
manufacturer, characterizing him as an “ignorant impostor”. Böhm’s
1847 Essay provided a convincing rebuttal to Rockstro’s views, but as
mentioned earlier it was suppressed in its English language form until
1882, following Böhm’s death in 1881.
Rockstro’s views reached their definitive
expression with the publication of his monumental 1890 work entitled “The
Flute”, which, for all its faults, remains the most comprehensive and
frequently-consulted nineteenth century work on that instrument.
Rockstro’s views regarding Böhm had been publicly challenged initially in
1882 through the belated and long overdue publication of Böhm’s 1847 “Essay”
through the efforts of Walter S. Broadwood, closely followed by the
publication of the first edition of Christopher Welch’s book “The
History of the Böhm flute”. This did not prevent Rockstro from
maintaining his charges against Böhm in his subsequent 1890 publication.
However, this publication prompted the death knell of Rockstro’s views
through the release of Welch’s far more scathing second edition in 1892.
Welch was able to show quite conclusively that Rockstro had been guilty
both of suppression of facts and of outright lies in presenting his views
of Böhm and that his published views amounted to libel against the
now-deceased Böhm. Welch’s verdict has been accepted by almost all
subsequent researchers – indeed, Rockstro himself clearly felt unable to
refute Welch’s charges and retreated completely and with finality from the
field of public commentary as of 1892.
This is a good example of the
principle that the failure of an individual accused of misrepresentation
to defend himself or herself may legitimately be seen as supporting the
veracity of the accusation. Böhm provides a good example of this – the
fact that as early as 1847 he went to the considerable trouble of writing
a detailed English-language defence against the detractors who were even
then slandering his reputation speaks volumes for his passionate (and
evidently well-founded) belief in the legitimacy of that defence.
Similarly, if Welch’s accusations against Rockstro were without
foundation, it seems inconceivable that the normally loquacious Rockstro
would not have followed Böhm’s example in mounting a vigorous defence of
his own. Hence, Rockstro’s failure to respond to Welch’s aggressive
challenge of his veracity on the issue of the Böhm flute provides perhaps
the best support of all for the validity of Welch’s case – if there had
been a rational rebuttal of Welch’s views available to Rockstro, we may be
sure that he would have used it. His silence in this context amounts to a
“guilty” plea.
One would think that with such a clear
verdict of prejudice and unreliability against him on the Böhm matter, the
overall credibility of Rockstro’s work would have been questioned by
subsequent writers – if he could intentionally mislead his readers so
flagrantly on this important subject, could he have been similarly out of
line on others?!? Inexplicably, this question has apparently not been
asked – instead, Rockstro’s work remains among the most frequent
references encountered when reading works on the flute by subsequent
researchers, and there does not appear to have been any focused attempt
made to evaluate his overall credibility on matters other than Böhm. In
the interests of testing the veracity of the historical record as
presented by Rockstro in his influential work, the present authors intend
to remedy this deficiency when time and circumstances permit. The results
will be made available upon completion.
John Clinton
(1809–1864) is a case in point when speaking of Rockstro. Clinton also
suffered from Rockstro’s scathing dismissal, but apart from a half-hearted
partial defense put forward by Welch in his second edition, there has been
no attempt to evaluate the credibility of Rockstro’s views on Clinton.
Instead, most subsequent writers, while fully accepting the unreliability
of Rockstro’s views on Böhm, appear quite inexplicably to have more or
less completely accepted his negative view of Clinton (and indeed of
others) without question. Indeed, open accusations against Clinton as a
liar and a failure continue to be made up to the present day, apparently
based largely on Rockstro’s views. The present authors have embarked upon
a comprehensive study of Clinton’s life and work with a view towards
achieving some objective clarity regarding his flutes and his many written
statements, and the results will be forthcoming as time and circumstances
permit.
An as-yet unchallenged commentator –
Richard Carte
The distinguished career of this
deservedly famous individual as a flautist, designer, manufacturer and
promoter spanned the entire period during which the concert flute evolved
from its simple 8-key conical bored form to essentially the form in which
we know it today. Carte wrote at considerable length in connection with
his chosen instrument in the form of letters to the media, in his major
1851 treatise entitled “A Sketch of the
Successive Improvements made in the Flute” (hereinafter referred
to as the “Sketch”) and in the introductory
General Remarks in the catalogues published over the years by the firm
of Rudall, Carte & Co. His writings have frequently been referred to or
quoted in subsequent works on the flute, and substantially all of his
written statements to which reference is generally made have recently been
re-published in Robert Bigio’s invaluable work “Readings in the History
of the Flute” (London: Tony Bingham, 2006). The reader is referred to
this excellent compilation for perusal of the complete original texts to
which reference is made throughout the work of the present authors.
It should thus be quite clear that Carte
was a significant commentator upon the development of the flute in the mid
nineteenth century, and one whose work has always been treated as
authoritative by later researchers. However, to our knowledge the actual
credibility of his writings in academic terms has never at any time been
challenged or questioned. Some might argue that this was due to what they
see as the transparent integrity and ability of Carte as a writer,
designer, manufacturer, businessman and performer. But in order for such
qualities as integrity and ability to become “transparent” in an academic
sense, they must first be shown to be transparent – mere
opinion or anecdote will not suffice when academic
credibility is at stake. Basically, they must withstand the test of
objective challenge and analysis. Carte’s work appears never to have been
subject to such a test.
So in a nutshell, we have in Carte one of
the most important nineteenth century commentators on the flute, but one
to whose work the test of credibility in an academic sense has never been
applied. The present authors have undertaken such an evaluation, with
perhaps surprising results reported elsewhere on this web site (make
link).
Summary
It should be apparent from the above
discussion that there can be no sacred cows when it comes to the
application of the credibility test to the writings of previous
commentators on this fascinating but sketchily-documented subject. Undue
reliance upon the unsubstantiated statements of any such commentator can
be fraught with pitfalls unless every effort is made to apply a high
standard of academic rigor to the confirmation and objective
interpretation of their statements.
The present authors have consistently
applied the standards set out above to their own historical research, and
will continue to do so. We fully embrace the notion that our findings
will be debated and challenged – after all, this is how the academic
process is supposed to function in the interests of the maintenance of
credibility. All we ask is that in challenging our views, our colleagues
do so to the same standards of academic rigor that we ourselves have
applied to our own work. Opinion and innuendo have no place in the
establishment of facts in connection with research of this nature – only
hard evidence and reasoned argument will do!
________________________________
|